472 



The Velutina otis of authors, now Otina otis, has been de- 

 posited in this genus, but I believe its affinities are in the 

 neighbourhood of the Bulks and Conovuli at the same time 

 I admit that it requires further examination. 



I now conclude ; and if it be considered, " Et genus insoli- 

 tum concordi lege coegit," or, in other words, that I have 

 applied a law that of union to a strange or anomalous race, 

 and brought its members more prominently into view, my 

 object will have been accomplished. 



ALATID.E, Lamarck. 



I introduce this family with pleasure and without hesitation 

 to the British list, to receive a single genus with one species, 

 commonly known as the Aporrhdis pes pelecani; but this 

 generic appellation is rejected with emphasis by M. Philippi, 

 for his Chenopus. I object to both, and adopt, on account of 

 priority, the generic title of Rostellaria. On what grounds 

 both M. Philippi and the French and English malacologists 

 have repudiated the natural position of this genus, established 

 by Lamarck (and alluded to by the admirable Cuvier as be- 

 longing to the Muricidte), and consigned it to the Cerithiadce, 

 I cannot comprehend. Philippi, in a note, says, "Animal 

 secundum Cuvierum Murici simile, quod falsum est." I do 

 not concur with M. Philippi, and will show that Rostellaria 

 and the present species, as one of its members, is essentially 

 a Muricidal animal. 



The only ground for the connexion of Rostellaria with 

 Cerithium is the muzzle ; but naturalists have failed to per- 

 ceive that that organ, in the true Cerithia, is of Rissoidean 

 stamp, and not at all resembling that of Rostellaria, being 

 broader, natter, and differently cloven ; whereas the Rostel- 

 larian muzzle is much longer, slenderer, more cylindrically 

 tapering, and only differs from the Muricidal typical pro- 

 boscis in being, by peculiar development, exsertile, instead 



